University of South Carolina Libraries
?NO SECOND PRIMARY TUESDAY FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED FROM PAGE i). 'rv. cast at said election for this respondent. n^ures unem ".This respondent further submits that on the face of the returns made to the State executive committee, it appears that he received in said counties as a candidate for governor votes; that the contestant, Ira B. Jones, received votes: and that the other candidate, John T. Duncan, > received votes; showing that this respondent in said counties received a majority of over both other candidates. There is no definite and particular allegation of the number of votes which were fraudulent or illegal which if cast out would destroy the majority which this respondent re* ceiy. .as a candidate for governor, and it also appears from the returns received in the counties mentioned in this contest would give to this respondent, throughout the whole State, a majority of over both his op X- , J f :j ponems, auu it is uui siaieu in >>cuu petition or made to appear by any definite allegation or any showing except "by mere general and'indefinite statements, that by subtracting the alleged illegal votes he would not have a majority of the legal votes cast at said election for the office of governor, j and he therefore submits that the said contest is without legal grounds, * without warrant of fact to support it, and should be disregarded' and dismissed. 8 / , "This respondent, further answer-1 ing, says that, notwithstanding all of the statements contained in said notice of contest which charge fraud and illegality, there is not a single allega-; tion that tie said fraudulent and illegal votes were not brought about by' the supporters and sympathizers of the said Ira B. Jones; nor is it charged that such alleged illegal practices and irregularities were brought about or participated in by those who voted for, supported and sympathized with this respondent. i Denies Fraud. v, "This respondent does not believe and denies that general fraud and illegal practices were indulged in at the primary held on August 27, and that said primary does not represent the free and fair expression of the will of the voters of this State in said election. This respondent has received communications and suggestions to the effect that fraud and imposition j r ana irregular practices were perpetrated and made in behalf of his opponent; Ira B. Jones, at said election; but this respondent will not and does not hereby make any# charge of fraud or of corruption exercised or indulged in by the supporters and sympathizers i of his opponent unless he is fully prepared to prove the same without doubt. He is aware, as airmen must be aware, . that in the primary elections of this * State there has been, and probably was in this primary, some illegal votes cast, from misapprehension, from er ror as to the law and as to the requirements statutes of the Slate and the constitution and rules of the Democratic party. Such irregularities and such errors were,* in great part, if (committed, done, as stated, under misapprehension; but this respondent de'nies and will not charge or entertain any idea that the primary election in this State was other than a free and fair expression of the will of peo-j pie of this State. The grounds of con? test here made have not in a single in- 1 stance charged that any single vote which was cast for this respondent was through fraud, corrupt purpose or intentional wrongdoing. The notice served upon respondent not only fails to make such charge, but leaves him without any opportunity of absolutely proving that such an assertion, if made, would be false and untrue. L This respondent claims that each and every vote cast for him was that of o r?nlv nnolifinr tV?/\ d uuij uuniitu vutci U1IUCI tile. Id * of the State and th? constitution and rules of the Democratic party. He, however, submits if there be any intentional irregularity or fraud in this election, that every member of the # executive committee to which this reply is addressed full knows that it was hardly within his power or that of his supporters to have perpetrated any fraud or wrong in the election t without the cognizance and concurrence or assent of the managers of election and of the officers of the several Democratic clubs; that in all of the counties of the State except a few tfie custodians of tile ciuD list or registry were supporters and sympathizers of the contestant; that the time within which the voters could enter their names upon said registry was controlled by his supporters and sympathizers. ^ The managers of the election were his ^ supporters and sympathizers, except in a few instances sucn managers were in the absolute control of, the conduct ; of the. election at each precinct and | as to who were and who were not qualified voters, and as to who were and who were not registered within due and proper time, and who deter; mined upon examination of the club list whether the party was entitled to j ^ {vote or not. i ne count ana caouia: tion of the vote cast at each precinct in the State except in a few instances mentioned above, was made by and under the control of the managers at each precinct who were supporters and sympathizers of the contestant The several county executive committees who were to canvass the vote and declare the result of the election and I | to determine the contests, so far as i their authority extended, were supi porters and sympathizers of the con j testant. And finally, the county exe| cutive committee who certified and determined the result of the election which was sent to you, the State executive committee, were, with a few exceptions mentioned above, supporters j and sympathizers of the contestant. And particularly is this true as to the counties of Aiken, Anderson, Chester, Cherokee!, Spartanburg, Union and York, where this respondent received large majorities, except in the county of Chester, where neither received a majority 01 me votes cast ana uiese are the counties where the large bulk of the Democratic vote of South Carolina is cast. In the county of Greenville also, where the contestant received a samll majority, is this true. /if any irregularities were committed in the conduct of the election, if any frauds were perpetrated in the election, it was with the knowledge, consent, acquiescence or negligence of J 1 -I - A _?* - _ ine supporters ana sympatnizers 01 the contestant. It is respectfully submitted to this committee that it does jiot with propriety lie in the mouth of the contestant to charge, with these facts in view, that there was general fraud and irregularities in the primary election of the Democratic par; ty held in the 27th of last month. This 1 respondent avers that whatever may i have been the irregularities charged, but which are not disclosed, by any ! definite statement of the contestant, or | any fraud committed which this respondent will not permit himself to ^believe, can not affect the result of | the election, for alleges that, of all the legal votes that were cast, he received a majority over both his opponents. This respondent submits that if there were frauds committed at the election i in South Carolina, they were matters ; and subjects of which the contestants had information which was not possessed by him; but he has expressed himself, and now desires to place upon record, in reply to this notice of contest that the primary election held ' resulted Jin his receiving a majority of the duly qualified voters of the State of South Carolina for the office which he was seeking, and that not a single vote cast for him can be proven to have been fraudulent or illegal, Nnor has any attempt been made to make the charge in any direct way, so far as he knows, and if this charge i? made | definite and to the point* this respond! ent is prepared to disprove the same. "Wherefore he submits to the executive committee that the voters of the State of South Carolina having exercised thtir right to vote in accordance with the statutes of the | State and the constitution and rules : oi iue jLiernocraiic party, nave voted ! and have given this respondent a mai jcrity of such votes for the office of governor, that he has been elected as such and should he so declared by ; this State executive committee. "John M. Cannon, "Fred H. Dominick. "Attorneys for Cole. L. Blease." I Notice to Attorneys. | "To R. W. Shand, Frank G. Tompkins qtiH \\7 XJ Tnnrnednd ***/?? I WUU IT ? XX, XVMUOW1U, U040., ni LUi ~ neys for Ifa B. Jones: "Please take notice that the rej spondent will demand that you make i more specific and definite the grounds ? of your contest in the particulars i j mentioned and set forth in the reply | of this respondent, so that this re spondent may be informed plainly and clearly as to the matters contested, ! and m#y be prepared to meet them at i any hearing that may be had in said proceedings. , "John M. Cannon, "Fred. H. Dominick, "Attorneys for Cole. L. Blease." NOTICE TO OVERSEERS. All ovprspers throii9rhont Npwhprrv county are hereby notified to put their respective sections in good condition during the month of August. L. I. Feagle, County Supervisor. Asthma S Asthma; POPHAM'S ASTHMA REMEDY I gives instant relief and an absolute cure I in. all cases of Asthma. Bronchitis, and ! Hay Fever. Sold by druggists: mail on : receipt of price St.oo. Trial Fackape by mall 10 cents. ; A ILLiAMS MFG. CO., Props-, Cleveland, O-ii I I 11,6 IH S t j ' B I ' Is T\u I ' 14 IF lei I# I i I i KB I T1 \ ?_???_ ierald an / -# lOOKPL * t ? [uipped For Ti ; Highest Class \ % \ YOU W Jest Advertisii y In This fe Ill A1UV / \ ADVERTtS f Herald ai * h Prints The I IT IS NO ELEPHONE M ?i?Ml 0 dNews ND ANT liming Out ; of Work \ t rANT Medium I fsnn rMVAA EIN y i y ' f id News fewsJWhile VS , N0J1 c ? HH3SBH^BB3SB5| =i ; I* "Vi * '"*7 I m , ? # v, . /'.. -1^5 H ' >"-3 09 - m 2 , - : iff, * v i ?KS i ? < . .< Si.'. ' VM* J '*> . r .'l ' - ' i' - ' ... '' ' < .v- * V- f r*jj^ ' 'Off I I ' Itii ! |?J M I' I* " i $v| > t # H J If J